Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....
Income Tax : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Goldfilled Mercantile Company vs. DCIT held that when the assessee shown lesser capital gain in its return of income under a bonafide belief of a deduction from it but paid due taxes then the assessee cannot be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) as there was no intention
The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Emblem Fashion Wear Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the assessee did not obtain approval, either pre or post facto, from the competent authority, as required by law. Also the assessee did not apply for any extension of time.
The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof will not be imposed where any addition or disallowance is made without any evidence or in a routine manner or on estimate and in cases where the Assessing Officer takes a view which is different from the bona fide view adopted by the assessee on any issue involving the interpretation of any provision of the Income Tax Act or any other law in force and which is supported by any judicial ruling.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Shri E. Krishnappa vs. ITO held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning its basis i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars or both would make the proceedings illegal because AO’s satisfaction of the existence
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Ami Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the assessee has explained one to one nexus namely cash funds received from sale of Bangalore property, and its utilization for Pune property.
ITAT Pune held In the case of Shri Ajit Ramchandra Jadhav. vs. ACIT that the order initiating the penalty proceedings has to be a different order and has to be passed by the person, who has made the addition / assessment in the hands of the assessee.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed by the Assessing Officer as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. He had filed return on 30-04-2007.
ITO Vs M/s Citizen Scales (I) P. Ltd. (ITAT MUMBAI)-The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that in para 4 of the assessment order it has been categorically recorded that there was a mistake in computation of book profit and the same was pointed out by the Assessing Officer
ITAT Delhi held in case of ACIT Vs. PTC Industries Ltd. ITAT held that when expenditure claimed is genuine then penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be levied. ITAT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC) wherein it was held that merely because of the assessee’s claim
